Friday, May 20, 2011

On Israel Being Tossed Under the Bus

Hmm. No time to do much on this, as my "bus" is due out any minute.

But, what of President Obama's calling on a return to pre-1967 lines between Israel and the Palestinian Authority?

And, what of the rapid response from so many in America, many legislators and leaders condemning Obama's stand?

Could Obama be persuaded he is wrong? Doubt it. Once a person takes a position, he often sticks stubbornly to it.

Obama argues self-determination, which is to say if those in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip want to be with the P.A., let them. But, many Israelis are behind those lines. What of their self determination?

And, what of the war environment? In any war, you attempt to take strategic points. They become essential. Those lands are vital to Israel's defense, as is being pointed out by everyone from Israel's P.M. Benjamin Netanyahu to Utah's Sen. Mike Lee.

Thursday, May 19, 2011

News from Israel as Anniversary Nears

It has been all but a year, hasn't it, since the Mavi Marmara, since "humanitarian" sea vessels sailed the waters to break Israel's blockade of Gaza. The Gaza Flotilla set out as humanitarian sea vessels bringing relief supplies to the Gaza Strip, but the idea was to provoke Israel to attack.


Israel boarded the Mavi Marmara, the passengers resisted, and nine were killed. The outrage against Israel has long since passed, but at the time, it was an embarrassment the likes of which Israel has seldom seen. Killing passengers of a humanitarian ship? Not good, said many around the world.

At the time, the outrage was such that more ships were expected to sail the seas, expected to attempt to break the blockade, expected to imitate and bring yet more outrage.

But, Israel eased the blockade, and no more ships came . . . until Monday, when a Malaysian sea vessel bearing a Moldovan flag reached the waters nearing Gaza, only to be turned back by Israel's navy.

And, in other news out of Israel, the Knesset is considering recognizing the Armenian Genocide, the timing being interesting since it is coming up on the one-year anniversary of the Mavi Marmara ordeal.

The Mavi Marmara was a low point in Israel-Turkey relations. And this move would not please Turkey. Turkey is what remains of the Ottoman Empire, which committed the genocide. Between 1 and 1.5 million died in the Armenian Genocide.

Also, Lebanese and Syrian protesters tried to come into Israel. That made news.

Then, there is the story I lost and didn't read well enough when I did see it to remember now how it went. Something about someone -- perhaps it was Palestinian Authority President Abbas -- calling for a popular uprising against Israel. I didn't study the news item enough to know, but that would be ala all the uprisings in Africa and the Middle East, with one major difference. The uprisings have been against the Arab dictatorships, Israel's foes. This would be against Israel, foe of those the uprisings have been against.

And, the biggest news. This you know, as it is a lead story. President Obama's called for a return to occupation lines existing before the Six-day War of 1967, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responding with outrage, saying those lines are not defensible. Palistinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas called the P.A. leadership into an emergency session to discuss Obama's speech, but may have been pleased by it. The Hamas were not, though, as they reacted by indicating Obama is siding with Israel.

Friday, May 13, 2011

Forgiveness in My Heart for Two Politicians

Two politicians asked for my forgiveness this past week, and I frankly forgave them both.

There was Beau Babka a day or two ago. Beau actually didn't ask for forgiveness, that I noticed, but he did say he was sorry as he pled guilty to taking, what? $120 in gas, charging a personal expense to the taxpayers on his account as a Cottonwood Heights Police Department officer.

Beau has run for Congress and for county sheriff. Should he run for anything again, I would consider voting for him, maybe even be inclined.

Then there was Newton Gingrich. He announced he is running for president. Now, this Newt was once a star on the American landscape, co-authoring the contract with America, serving as speaker of the House from 1995-1999. Back in the day, he helped reform welfare, contributing to the enactment of workfare legislation, and pressured President Clinton for the balanced budget in 1999, the first balanced budget in 30 years. Unemployment fell to 4.2 percent in Newt's term and we had the lowest rate of government spending in decades.

Of course I'll consider voting for him. Of the top, I have him ahead of Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, President Obama and the rest. He's the one I favor as they break from the gates.

Course, I realize he has been married three times, with the last marriage coming out of an affair he had at the time he was a lead Republican looking into accusations Clinton was having affairs with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky.

And, there were the ethics charges, maybe 85 of them, 84 of which were dropped, but he was found guilty of failure to seek legal advice and providing information he knew was inaccurate. Hmm, clean on 84 of 85, with what is left including simply a failure to seek legal advice? Before the election comes -- and there's plenty of time -- I will want to go back and find out what that was all about.

Guess Gingrich didn't really ask for forgiveness, either (from what I caught of the news). But, he won't get elected without it. He's got it from me.

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Does New Law Put One Opinion Over Another?

Never would we want to legislate that schools teach one political opinion over another.

So, let's hope we have not done that with HB220, the much ballyhooed new law requiring schools to teach that the U.S. is a "compound republic."

Now, the new law doesn't say schools are not to teach that we are also a democracy, but, yes, somehow that seems implied.

And, how much "democracy" and how much "republic" belong in our government is a matter of political debate, these days. Look no further than the oppposition to voter initiatives. I see the debate swirling in undercurrents, as I recall a Facebook posting not long ago pointing out that government-by-town hall-vote was common back in pilgrim days.

And, I find my own opinion of whether we should be a democracy or a republic influenced by a passage in The Book of Mormon, which speaks of government by the voice of the people, it not being often that the voice of the people came out against that which was right.

Maybe, though, that word "compound" in the new state law is the key. It says we are a "compound republic." Maybe being a "compound" republic is the allowance that we are also a "democracy."

If so, does that end the question of whether the new law espoused one political belief over another? Perhaps, as off the top of my head I cannot think of anyone who suggests we something besides either a democracy or a republic or a combination of the two.

Oh, one more, thought: Lost in all the ballyhoo about how the new law requires teaching that we are a republic is the fact it also requires schools to display the U.S. motto, "In God we trust."

It sure seems that could attract a lawsuit, someone  suggesting it a violation of church and state.

Saturday, May 7, 2011

An Appeal to Matheson to Fight Crime

Just sent a version of my appeal to Rep. Jim Matheson, saying:

Rep. Matheson:

'Tis time for doing what I write of here, for the situation has become so troubling that small measures are not enough.

Give us landmark legislation, Jim, to solve our border woes.

The legislation I am suggesting would be popular, both with your constituents and your fellow congressmen, so why not be the person to introduce it?

Instead of immigration reform, let's reform our border patrol, and let's reform our laws dealing with drug crime coming across the border.

I do not need to tell you how serious a problem drugs pouring across our border has become. The Department of Justice suggests the Mexican drug cartels -- not the mafia and not the Cripps and Bloods -- are our foremost organized crime problem. We are told the Mexican cartels have their gang members in 250 of our cities.

Talk suggests Mexico's government might collapse to the cartels. Just talk, perhaps, but then again, the threat is rising.

So serious is the problem, we need to take action. If this were a government in the Middle East that was toppling, would we act? If our security was threatened by something going on in the Middle East, would we act?

Then, shouldn't we act the quicker if the country is our neighbor?

Of course, I am not talking in troops, but I do believe we should send our law enforcement officers into Mexico.

We should go right into that country to fight the crime. If that is where the criminals are, then we must go after them, there. We cannot simply stand on this side of the border, snatching off poor immigrants coming in hopes of a better way of life and suppose we are fighting the drug lords sitting comfortably outside our border and outside our reach. They should be laughing at us for all we are doing. We chase the migrant farm workers who yearn and seek to be Americans? And, that is our solution? If we do not know the difference between crime and immigration, we will never solve either. If we slap immigration answers on crime questions, we cannot hope to adequately address the problem.

If we are to fight crime in Mexico, we will need an agreement with Mexico, allowing our investigators and our officers to go down there to enforce U.S. laws.

Landmark legislation, then, is what is required. I don't know how many countries have ever had such agreements. Maybe this would be a first. I do not know. But, this is what the circumstances demand that we do.

And, most importantly, we need laws -- new laws -- that specifically address the crimes being committed. We have laws against cultivating drugs, but do we have any suggesting if you raise drugs in a foreign land, it is an offense in the USA? Do we have a law saying if you raise a drug that potentially could be sold in the U.S., we will come after you in that foreign land where you are raising it? Do we have a law that says if you direct or coordinate the flow of drugs from outside the U.S. into the U.S., you are guilty of a U.S. offense?

Perhaps most telling, do have a law making it a crime to recruit someone to bring drugs across our border? If we did, the immigrant -- sometimes forced to become a human pack mule at point of life -- could finger the drug runners and serve as a witness for the prosecution.

The crimes are being committed by those living outside the U.S. We need laws addressing that reality, empowering us to go into those countries to bring them to justice for crimes they are committing against American citizens.

If you don't have laws against the crime, and don't have a police agency to go after them, you haven't even begun solve the problem, and are hardly even facing it.

Of our border patrol, much needs to be done. As is, it is not much more than a paperwork police. The officers often do nothing more than escort illegal immigrants back across the border. That is not a heavy lot of police we are getting out of them, despite the fact the southern border is home to some of our most serious crime.

We need to put a real police force in place at the border, one empowered to enforce the new laws we create, one with authorization to go right down into Mexico to investigate drug use and apprehend drug lords.

We also need to ensure the tools we have for fighting crime in the U.S. are in place in Mexico. Do they have an adequate fingerprinting system? Do they have an NCIC-type of record keeping? These too, should be added through the agreement with Mexico.

So, get the agreement with Mexico, get the new legislation enacted, get the tools in place, and transform the border patrol into a real police agency.

Fight crime, not people. More specifically, go after criminals, not those without paperwork.

As I said, if we do not know the difference between crime and immigration, we are never going to solve either. Crime is such a large problem, we better get a clue soon. Deciding whether children should be allowed college educations (the DREAM Act) is not going to solve the problem of all the crime entering the U.S. at our Mexican border.

Let us fight crime where crime is the problem. Let's not pass this off as an immigration issue, for to do so is to ignore and overlook one of the greater threats facing our nation.

Thursday, May 5, 2011

Landmark Legislation for Our Freshman Senator

Senator,

'Tis a time for this, simply because the problem is so large, it fits this need.

Landmark legislation, from Utah's freshman senator, could change the face of our problems at the border.

Instead of immigration reform, Senator, let's reform our border patrol, and let's reform our laws dealing with drug crime coming across the border.

Senator, I do not need to tell you how serious a problem drugs pouring across our border has become. The Department of Justice suggests the Mexican drug cartels -- not the mafia and not the Cripps and Bloods -- are our foremost organized crime problem. We are told the Mexican cartels have their gang members in 250 of our cities.

Talk suggests Mexico's government might collapse to the cartels. Just talk, perhaps, but then again, the threat is rising.

So serious is the problem, we need to take action. If this were a government in the Middle East that was toppling, would we act? If our security was threatened by something going on in the Middle East, would we act?

Then, shouldn't we act the quicker if the country is our neighbor?

Senator, of course I am not talking of sending troops into Mexico, but I do believe we should send our law enforcement into Mexico.

We should go right into that country to fight the crime. If that is where the criminals are, then we must go after them, there. We cannot simply stand on this side of the border, snatching off poor people coming into our country in hopes of a better life and suppose we are fighting the drug lords sitting comfortably outside our border and outside our reach. They should be laughing at us for all we are doing.

Yes, this will require an agreement with Mexico, allowing our investigators and our officers to go down there to enforce U.S. laws.

Landmark legislation, then, is what is required. I don't know how many countries have ever had such agreements. Maybe this would be a first. I do not know. But, this is what the circumstances demand that we do.

We need laws -- new laws -- that specifically address the crimes being committed. We have laws against cultivating drugs, but do we have any suggesting if you raise drugs in a foreign land, it is an offense in the USA? Do we have a law saying if you raise a drug that potentially could be sold in the U.S., we will come after you? Do we have a law that says if you direct or coordinate the flow of drugs from outside the U.S. into the U.S., you are guilty of a U.S. offense?

Perhaps most telling, do have a law making it a crime to recruit someone to bring drugs across our border? If we did, the immigrant -- sometimes forced to become a human pack mule at point of life -- could finger the drug runners and serve as a witness for the prosecution.

And, our border patrol: It is not much more than a paperwork police. The officers often do nothing more than escort illegal immigrants back across the border. That is not a heavy lot of police work getting done, despite the fact the southern border is home to some of our most serious crime.

We need a real police agency at the border.

So, get the agreement with Mexico, allowing our border agents to go right down into that country, empowering them to fight crime, not people without paperwork.

Senator, if we don't know the difference between crime and immigration, we are never going to solve either. Crime is such a large problem, we better get a clue soon. If we do no more than slap immigration answers on what is a crime problem, we cannot expect to ever adequately solve the problem. Deciding whether children should be allowed college educations (the DREAM Act) is not going to solve the problem of all the crime entering the U.S. at our Mexican border.

Let's fight crime, not immigration.

Would for Hatch to Introduce this Legislation

I just sailed this email off to Senator Orrin Hatch without editing it, since I was using a library computer and my computer time was limited. I'll post it without any editing.

Senator,


'Tis a time for this. 1.) It would be landmark legislation; 2.) Your 2012 campaign will get a boost; 3.) It is simply something we should do.

Instead of immigration reform, Senator, let's reform our border patrol, and let's reform our laws dealing with drug crimes at the border.

Senator, I do not need to tell you how serious a problem drugs pouring across our border has become. The Department of Justice suggests the Mexican drug cartels -- not the mafia and not the Cripps and Bloods -- are our foremost organized crime problem. We are told the cartels are stationed in, I believe, 250 of our cities.

Talk suggests Mexico's government might collapse to the cartels. Just talk, perhaps, but then again, the threat is rising.

So serious is the problem, we need to take action. If this were a government in the Middle East that was toppling, would we act? If our security was threatened by what was going on it a foreign land, would we act?

And, what if this country was our neighbor?

Senator, of course I am not talking of sending troops into Mexico, but I do believe we should send our law enforcement into Mexico.

We should go right down into Mexico to fight the crime that is crossing our southern border. How do you fight crime, if you do not go where the criminals are and arrest them and bring them back? Yes, this will require an agreement with Mexico, allowing our investigators and our officers to go down there to enforce U.S. laws.

As I said, landmark legislation. I don't know how many countries have ever had agreements with other countries allowing for such an arrangement, but if this is the first, so be it. This is what the circumstances demand that we do.

We need laws -- new laws -- that specifically address the crimes being committed. We have laws against cultivating drugs, but do we have one saying if you raise drugs in a foreign land, it is an offense in the USA? Do we have a law saying if you raise a drug that potentially could be sold in the U.S., we will come after you? Do we have a law that says if you -- even though you are outside our borders -- direct or coordinate the flow of drugs into the U.S., you are guilty of a U.S. offense?

Perhaps most telling, do have a law making it a crime to recruit someone to bring drugs across our border? If we did, the immigrant -- who is sometimes forced to become a human pack mule at point of his life -- could finger the drug runners once they crossed into the U.S.

And, our border patrol: It is not much more than a paperwork police. The officers often do nothing more than escort illegal immigrants back across the border. That is not a heavy lot of police work getting done, despite the fact the southern border is home to some of our most serious crime.

We need a real police agency at the border.

So, get the agreement with Mexico, allowing our border agents to go right down into that country, empowering them to fight crime, not people without paperwork.

Senator, if we don't know the difference between crime and immigration, we are never going to solve either of the problems. The crime problem is big enough, we better get a clue soon. We will never solve the crime question if we do no more than to slap immigration answers on it. Deciding whether children should be allowed college educations (the DREAM Act) has nothing or hardly anything do with crime coming into the U.S.

We need to fight crime, not immigration.